Skip to main content

Full text of "THE MYTHOLOGICAL HEBREW TERMS EXPLAINED BY THE SANSKRIT"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 

THE MYTHOLOGICAL HEBREW TERMS EXPLAINED 
BY THE SANSKRIT. 

An Essay in Comparative Philology and Mythology. 

[Mr. O. Neufchotz de Jassy's article presents a very original and novel 
theory, the derivation of Israelitish notions and names from Sanskrit sources. 
If it be true, it would open a new vista to comparative religion and folklore, 
but if it be a mere ingenious conceit, it remains none the less interesting and 
will even prove instructive because it teaches us how many purely haphazard 
coincidences can be discovered if we only seek zealously for them, being 
permitted to adjust them ever so little to make them suit the occasion. What 
remarkable combinations can be found in the Cabbala, and other mystic books ! 

We do not deem it likely that Hebrew scholars will readily take to M. de 
Jassy's theory, but they will be astonished to note how easily, for instance, 
the plural form Elohim which has given so much trouble to Biblical exegetes 
can be changed into a veritable singular without changing a letter in the 
text, simply by a modification of the vowels, superadded to the text by later 
generations. And what a remarkable coincidence, if such it be, is the fact 
that the name Noah (in Hebrew Nowak) might very well according to its 
sound be a derivative from the same Aryan root from which sprang the words 
nauta, sailor, navis, ship, navigate, to sail, etc. ! 

The three consonants N V K correspond exactly to the root of navigate, 
N V G, and it would not be impossible that the Persians, who are an Aryan 
people, called the Babylonian Parnapishtim, the hero of the Babylonian 
Deluge legend, in their own language "the seafaring one," and that the Jews 
adopted that name. At any rate we may concede that the word Noah is not 
Hebrew and its derivation from the Hebrew noakh* "rest," is not tenable. 

We can not say that we have become convinced by M. de Jassy, but we 
trust that our readers will be as interested as we have been, in noting these 
many surprising coincidences. — Ed.] 

I propose to show in this essay that almost every mythological 
Hebrew term in Genesis finds a similar term in the mythology of 
the Hindus, and that the similarity of the terms has as corollary an 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 127 

absolute concordance of the myths. I will show further that most 
of the Hebrew terms even of less importance are derived from 
Sanskrit roots and that there is without doubt a narrow relation- 
ship between the Sanskrit and the Hebrew languages. 

The results of this essay may be a copious harvest of surprises. 
Many terms whose explanation has been more or less doubtful will 
find a definite solution, other terms will show that they conflict ob- 
viously with the primitive significations scholars have given to 
them. The whole mythological web and woof may change in 
its intrinsic form, and people will be surprised to suddenly find the 
reconstruction of the mythology of the Hebrews, accidentally lost 
or intentionally destroyed. 

It may be that scholars will hesitate to follow us in the new 
orientation given to the methods of explaining words and myths 
per analogiam — especially those scholars whose theological con- 
victions harmonize with their scientific conceptions; but by deeper 
examination of scientific facts and the result that necessarily fol- 
lows, they cannot but consider very curious these numerous coin- 
cidences. 

Let us take one or two examples: 

The word Shadai or Shaddai is translated by all scholars "the 
almighty," and El shadai, 1 "the almighty God." Our method per 
analogiam will show that this translation is absolutely false. More 
than that, it will show that the similarity of the Sanskrit and the 
Hebrew words reveals a mythological fact that was unknown until 
the present time. 

Let us see for instance whence Shadai is derived. It comes 
from the verb shadod, 2 "to destroy." 

Shadai, then, means "destroyer" and El shadai, "the God of 
destruction." 

Let us now investigate the root of the verb shadod, which is 
shad. What does shad mean in Sanskrit? To subdue, to van- 
quish, to destroy. Hence the root is the same. Let us now see 
what shadia means in Sanskrit. It means "the destroyer" and is 
an epithet of Shiva. El shadai is therefore Shiva-Shadia. Is this 
a coincidence? Let us go further, let us follow it to its last con- 
sequences. Let us see how the worshipers of Shiva adored Shiva, 
and how the worshipers of El-Shadai adored El-Shadai. This 
comparison will be the more interesting because it has never before 
been undertaken. 

1 -m 5K s ~nx 



128 THE MONIST. 

The worshipers of the Hindu Shadai, of Shiva, put on their left 
arm a little receptacle or a ring containing the united linga and yoni. 
We do not need to observe that Shiva represents both lust and 
destruction, or destruction and reconstruction. 

The Jews have the same custom even in our time. They put 
on the left arm a little black box (Shadai or Shiva represents the 
dark color, the night). On two sides of this receptacle the letter 
sheen, s representmg the word Shadai, is embossed. It is presumable 
that this little box, called baith, "the house," contained originally 
the same priapic emblems replaced later by the Talmudists with 
a few texts taken from the Bible. The Talmudic rabbis changed 
even the name of these boxes 4 called formerly Totuphath (the 
etymology is unknown) to Tephilim (Greek, philacteries), "prayer- 
boxes." 

It is needless to add that the Jews were worshipers of the 
phallic cult, that the covenant between El-Shadai and Abraham 
is a phallic one etc. We will only observe that the phallic worship 
comes from the Hindus and that Shiva especially was narrowly 
and brutally connected with this worship. 

So inveterate was this cult of Shadai-Shiva with the Jews that 
neither the efforts of the Jehovists nor time itself could destroy it. 
Even to-day on the doors of every orthodox Jew may be seen a 
little cylindrical box of glass or metal bearing the name Shadai, 
and the women in childbed are surrounded by little papers bearing 
the name of Shadai. Certainly the signification is lost, like the 
signification of the fish that Catholics eat on Friday, like so many 
religious or superstitious significations. 

It there also a strange coincidence in the similarity of the 
worship ? 

Let us now take an example of less importance, the word Miz- 
rdim? Egypt. Let us remove the plural ending or rather the dual 
form aim. We obtain the word Mizr. Let us now see what misr 
means in Sanskrit. 6 Misr, from misra, signifies "combined, united, 
jointed places." Misr in Sanskrit means Egypt (the upper and the 
lower, hence the dual form in Hebrew). It would be idle to con- 
tinue here. 

3 V} 

'There are two, one for the forehead and one for the arm. The wor- 
shipers of Vishnu also put a kind of trident called the Nachman on their 
foreheads. 

" See M. Monier Williams, A Sanskrit Dictionary. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 120, 

Before I go further I would observe that this essay contains 
nothing but a few outlines of an important work in preparation 
that requires time, patience and depth of research. 

Elohim. 

The first mythological surprise arising from a study of com- 
parative philology and mythology meets us in the well-known 
triade : Bereshith bora Elohim 1 : "In the beginning the Gods created." 

These three words in the beginning of Genesis, have always 
been the stumbling-block of Jewish and Christian scholars. Why 
is Elohim in the plural, and why is the verb in the singular? — The 
most fantastic comments were given to this grammatical anomaly. 
Petrus Lombardus went so far as to try to prove the trinity in this — 
pluralis majestatis, and Rudolph Stier invented for this purpose 
a new grammatical term the pluralis trinitatis. — The most subtle 
comments were given and the most ingenious. However, scholars 
were mistaken; the ground for their mistake lies in the fact that 
they reasoned with casuistry rather than scientifically. 

From the standpoint of comparative mythology, we do not see 
in any other theogony a similar conventional plural form, though 
the highest gods of the Hindus, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, 
Greeks and Romans represent a plurality of the most various epithets. 
Savitri is Praja-Pati, is Indra, Rudra, Agni, Soma, Vishnu etc. 
The Babylonian Marduk possesses fifty names of the great gods 
that had been conferred upon him ; he is Bel and Ea and Anu and 
Nebo, Enlil and Nergal etc. Nevertheless they ignore this pluralis 
majestatis of the noun agreeing with a verb in the singular form. 
Zeus, Jupiter, Osiris etc. possess the same richness of divine epithets, 
and the Greeks especially were certainly a people of refined and 
high courtesy in regard to their gods. When we see a disagreement 
between the divine noun and the verb, it is rather in the singular 
of the first and the plural of the latter. And this fact happens in 
Genesis only when Elohim — who, we will see immediately, is not 
Elohim at all — is speaking to himself, takes council with himself. 
"Let us make a man in our image." 8 But in the narrative the 
singular of the verb is always used. 

No, this pluralis majestatis of Elohim is not to be taken seri- 
ously. 

Another more important question arises which, as we will see, 
is in close connection with the first. 

7 nvwx toa nrwro 8 Tarawa onx rror; 



I3O THE MONIST. 

How is it possible that whereas all other cosmogonies begin 
with the creation of the gods, the Bible alone shows us a Deus ex 
machina, ready made, without indicating how he was created or 
of what matter he was formed? 

As we said both questions are closely connected. Both are in- 
cluded in the same word, and the double explanation will be found 
in the etymology of Elohim itself. It will show us for instance 
that the plural form of Elohim is not a plural at all ; it will show us 
further how the God of Genesis zvas created before he became 
creator in his turn. 

Elohim is composed of two words, 8 and the explanation lies 
in their separation. El being now in the singular form, the verb 
bara, "created," agrees with the noun in the most natural way. El 
bara, "El created." This is the first solution. 

The other is most interesting, although it seems more compli- 
cated in its exposition and final deductions. 

El haiom, the Seagod. 

El being El haiom, the Seagod, the God who started from the 
water, we discover to our surprise the most interesting mythological 
phenomenon, viz., that the same fate that governs the gods of all the 
theogonies, governs also the Hebrew El. 

In all the cosmogonies the first factor of creation starts from 
water. Water is the origin of the universe. The earth originates 
from water, and as we will see El means "earth." The heaven 
itself is nothing else but water as the word shamaim indicates and 
as we will see later. All creatures, beasts and birds, formed by El 
haiom, are made of water (see Genesis). 

The scribe of the Bible is guilty of this little fault of contraction 
that concealed during centuries how the God of Genesis was created 
and the Masoretic doctors — perhaps Ezra before them — impregnated 
with Jehovistic ideas, did nothing toward revealing the mistake — 
rather did everything to hide it, — and they voweled the contracted 
words with the point-vowels Elohim, which thus became a plural 
form. 

El from the Standpoint of Comparative Philology and Mythology. 

But let us examine thoroughly the two words from the stand- 
point of comparative philology and mythology. 

Hebrew, El; Sanskrit, il; Babyl. Elu; Phoenic. ila; Arab, ilah, 
allah ; Greek, ^Atos ; Lat. Sol. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 131 

El then means earth and is to the Hebrews as Elu is to the 
Babylonians, Helios to the Greeks, and Sol to the Romans, at first 
a terrestrial god par excellence. And as Elu becomes a heavenly 
god, as Helios becomes a heavenly god representing the Sun, as 
Sol becomes a heavenly god on the same condition as Helios, El 
will become a heavenly god, as we will see later, though he will 
remain the terrestrial god, occupied with the general affairs of 
mankind like the other gods, at least those who started from the 
waters and who became friends, teachers and saviours of mankind. 
This fact brings El in near connection with the corresponding gods 
of the other nations as will be seen when we shall have studied his 
apposition iam. 

Iam, n\ Mai, •>», Maia. 

Iam in Hebrew means "sea," (ha is the article). The inversion 
of iam is mai, Assyr. mei, "water." The corresponding term in 
Sanskrit is maia. 

The mythological result obtained from the philological analogy 
of Mai and Maia is as conclusive as it is interesting. 

Maia is the water and the mother of Brahma (earth, at first 
a demiurgus like El). Mai, the inversion of iam, is the water and 
the mother of El. El is therefore identical with Brahma as he is 
identical with Elu, Helios, Sol. 

Every divine being with the Hindus has his Maia. Every divine 
being in the theogonies of the other nations has his Maia. Moses 
has his Mar-jam (the "drop of the sea," i. e., the water). Christ 
has his Maia (Latin mare, maris, whence Mari-a, the a forming 
the feminine). The mother of Bacchus, the saviour of mankind, 
was Myrrha or Maia. The mother of Hermes, Krishna, Buddha, 
Adonis etc., was called Myrrha or Maia; Maia, Maria (a pleonasm 
form of Maia) was also called the mother of the Siamese Savior, 
Samona Cadona. 

Mai or Maia represents here as there the productive power of 
the female principle. The first factor born of it is the male, who 
becomes creator in his turn. Every saviour of mankind is therefore 
a firstborn. He is also a virgin-bora, because Maya, the mother, 
produced him without fecondation by the male principle. But the 
male principle of fecundation in nature being the sun, or the fire 
representing the sun, all Earthgods will represent the sun: El, 
Brahma, Elu, Helios, Sol, etc. The most characteristic illustration 
of the fire residing in the water as the lightning resides in the 



132 THE MONIST. 

clouds, gives us the Vedic sacrifice whence the Christian communion 
is borrowed. Both offerings, the sacred liquor Soma and the cake 
prepared of butter and flower, are presented to the holy fire. Agni 
(the fire-god) resides in both. The chalice contains also the mother 
of Agni, Maia, because Maia, the flame, can start from Maia, the 
liquor. 

Ioni, Ioni. 

We have seen that Mai or Maia are identical terms with iden- 
tical significations and represent similar mythical personifications. 
The root of the words lorn (Yama, Yamuni) will show us other 
mythical similarities with El-ha-iom, which will appear to be new 
personalities, but which are really the same as the deities already 
mentioned. The root of torn is the Sanskrit yu, the same as of the 
term Yoni. 

lorn and Ioni having the same root, have also the same sig- 
nification. Yoni or Yonis means the womb, the matrix, the life- 
giving element, the water. Although representing the female organ 
of generation, both torn and yoni are of a masculine form. It is 
true that the later Sanskrit uses Yoni as both masculine and fem- 
inine. But Yoni is rarely feminine in the older language. Iotn 
in Hebrew is always masculine: Iotn hagadol etc. 

This curious linguistic phenomenon showing the words yoni 
and iotn, which are representing the female organ, in a masculine 
form, is observed also with the word mata, mother, that is masculine 
in Rig- Veda. More than that, in the Georgian language mama 
signifies father. 

The reason of this strange phenomenon may be found in the 
fact that these words were created in a matriarchal epoch, when the 
mother, having the entire care of her children, who often ignored 
their father, represented the acting personality, the nourisher and 
defender, the strength, the male, the father. 

The life-giving Yom or Yoni, the nurses of all living creatures, 
are in the same case. El-ha-iom and El-yoni will then have the 
same signification. He is the fire or the sun residing in the iom or 
Ioni and starting out as creator and saviour of mankind. He is 
therefore identical with Jonas (Jonah), with Oannes, with Okeanos, 
who are the same mythological personifications [derived from the 
same word yu or Yoni] and with all the Jona that we will find later 
with the most diverse nations. I would state here that the etymology 
of all these words was unknown until the present day. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. I33 

El-ha-iom and the Sea-Deities. 

I do not know whether the beginning of Genesis describing 
the creation of El-ha-iom and his other peculiarities is lost, or if the 
theogonic part is written intentionally in condensed terms for the 
reason that the Jehovists wished to conceal a mythological fact that 
seemed to conflict with their new theological ideas. The exterior 
form of El, his personality, is not depicted as that of the other sea- 
gods whom he resembles in his essence.. Indeed every sea-god we 
enumerated bears a peculiarity that is characteristic of an aquatic 
being, as he bears in his love for mankind a characteristic of man- 
kind. The head is generally that of a man and the body and the 
tail those of a fish. 

It is natural that the Iom or the Joni being the liquor and the 
fire residing in the liquor [El and Iom, Agni and Maya, Helios and 
Thetis, etc.] the fish will represent the watering element and the 
fire. Hence in all the cosmogonies the fish will represent the sun 
and all the sungods will be in their own turn represented by the 
fish. Indeed, we see all the saviours appearing in the form of a 
fish. Vishnu became a fish to save the seventh Manu, the pro- 
genitor of the human race from the universal deluge. 

The Assyrians and Babylonians worshiped the fish Dagan repre- 
senting the sun. The Talmud announced the Saviour under the 
form of a fish. The earliest symbol of Christ was a fish, and he 
himself is called a fish. Buddha is called Dag-Po or Fo, the Fish. 
Jonah, lying for three days in the body of a fish represents the 
winter solstice (from the 22d to the 25th of December) when the 
sun is in the lowest regions. But in Jonah and the fish the same 
mythical personification is divided into two, and such divisions are 
frequent in all theogonies. They represent the various manifesta- 
tions of the same natural phenomenon. — The fact that neither El 
haiom nor Jonah nor Noah appears under the form characterizing 
the Chaldaean or Greek sea-gods, as for instance Oannes or Okeanos, 
brings the Jewish myth nearer to the Aryan source. Indeed, I do 
not doubt for a moment that the myth of Noah was at first borrowed 
from the Aryans, and that much later the Hebrews took a second 
graft of the same account from the Chaldaeans. No doubt, there 
are two variations of the same deluge-story in Genesis. Hence the 
numerous contradictions. Struck with wonder by the similarity 
of the Biblical and Chaldaean myth discovered in the cuneiform in- 
scriptions, Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch did not push his investigations 



134 THE MONIST. 

to the last etymological and linguistic consequences. And the 
names of Noah and his sons Cham, Shem and Japhet seem to me 
as important as the deluge story itself. 

Noah or Novach and Agni-Novich. 

As far as I know neither the meaning nor the etymology of 
the word Noah and that of the names of his sons have found a 
conclusive or even plausible solution up to the present day. The 
general acceptation that Noah means "who reposes" is not admissible 
and conflicts obviously with the high mission with which Noah was 
invested. 10 

The true significance of the word may be found in the corres- 
ponding Sanskrit term. The identical Sanskrit term for Noah or 
Novach— the name read without the masoretic point-vowels — is 
Navaja or Navika. Now let us see where Nava-ja or Navi-ka are 
derived from. 

Nau or nava in Sanskrit means a ship, a boat, a vessel 11 ; Greek 
vatis ; Latin navis ; old German nach ; modern German Nachen ; 
Anglo-Saxon, naco ; Bav. naue. 

Noah or Novach or the Sanskrit Novich or Nava-ja mean there- 
fore the steerer of a boat, the pilot, Greek voii-Tij-s ; Latin nau-t-a. 

The etymology of the word Noah appears so natural and so 
simple that we are indeed surprised that no linguist has made the 
application before. 

But let us return to the myth. 

One of the epithets of Agni is Agni-Novich, "Agni the pilot." 
But Agni is Vishnu and we saw Vishnu in the form of a fish saving 
the seventh Manu from the deluge. Now who is the seventh Manu ? 
Another form of the first Manu, born from the sun, hence represent- 
ing the sun. Who is Noah ? Another form of Adam, the first man. 
When we open the book of Enoch we find this wonderful story 
about Noah's birth : Lantech's 12 wife brought forth a child, the flesh 
of which was white as snow and red as a rose, the hair of whose 
head was white like wool and long (all the solar gods have long hair, 
Samson, Phcebus, Hercules etc.) and whose eyes were beautiful. 

10 Some scholars translate Noah "the consoler." They see the consolation 
in the wine. 

u The ark of Noah is called in Hebrew teba, without the masoretic points 
tba or rather twa, the b being soft without dagash; Sanskrit twac from the 
verb twac, "to cover" ; Latin tego ; Old German dekin ; modern German 
decken; Lith., denjin, a bark, a peeling, a protecting cover. Bunsen derives 
tewa from the Egyptian tba, a chest; tpt, a boat. 

a Lamech, Sanskrit Lamash, "the bull," the emblem of the sun. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. I35 

When he opened them they "illuminated all the house like the sun," 
and when he was taken from the hand of the midwife, opening also 
his mouth, "he spoke to the Lord of righteousness," etc. We know 
that all the saviours of mankind spoke immediately after their 
birth. We know also that the fire is considered by the Hindus as 
the first ancestor of mankind. There is no mistake: Noah, Manu 
and Agni-Novich are the same mythical personification. They are 
the fire or the sun residing in the water. The deluge may overwhelm 
the whole universe, but Noah, the sun-pilot, starts triumphantly 
from the waters. This allegorical solar boat-steerer has the same 
raison d'etre in the Bible as in the Vedas, since the Biblical heaven 
was made of water like the Vedic heaven — as we will see later — and 
the sun starting in the morning from the waters under the firma- 
ment, piles the whole day in the waters above the firmament. 

Noah is the eternal solar pilot. 

When we pursue our mythical investigation, we find in the 
compound word nava-bandano (ship-binding) the name of the high- 
est peak of the Himalayas (the Mt. Ararat of the Hebrews) to 
which Manu is said to have anchored his ship in the great flood. 18 

Shem, Cham, Japhet — Soma, Kam, Pra-Japati. 

The analogy of the linguistic and mythological facts becomes 
more evident, when we consider the sons of Noah, Shem, Cham, 
Japhet. 

These three sons, it is said in Genesis, became the progenitors 
of the new mankind. Now let us compare them with the Aryan 
progenitors Soma, Kam or Kama and Pra-Japati (corresponding 
to the Babylonian Zorovanus, Titan and Japethostes) the three sons 
of the Hindu ark-preserved Manu. 

13 The Hindu legend of the deluge is as follows : Many ages after the 
creation of the world Brahma resolved to destroy it with a deluge on account 
of the wickedness of the people. There lived at that time a pious man, Saty- 
vrata, (Saty-vrata is not a proper name, but an epithet meaning pious man. 
Noah also was named a pious man) and as the lord of the universe loved this 
pious man and wished to preserve him from the sea of destruction which was 
to appear on account of the depravity of the age, he appeared before him in 
the form of Vishnu and said : In seven days from the present time the worlds 
will be plunged in an ocean of death, but in the midst of the destroying waves 
a large vessel, sent by me for thy use, shall stand before thee. Then shalt 
thou take all medicinal herbs, all the variety of foods, and accompanied by 
seven saints, surrounded by pairs of all animals, thou shalt enter the spacious 
ark, and continue in it secure from the flood on one immense ocean without 
light, except the radiance of thy holy companions. When the ship shall be 
agitated by an impetuous wind, thou shalt fasten it with a large sea-serpent 
on my horn; for I will be near to thee (in the form of a fish; Vishnu-Noah- 
Jonah) drawing the vessel with thee and thy attendants. I will remain on 
the ocean until a night of Brahma shall be completely ended. Etc. 



I36 THE MONIST. 

Kam or Kama, in Sanskrit, means: "he who follows the dic- 
tates of passion or desire." Kama is the god of love, Hebrew 
Cham, 1 * "hot," substantive "heat, ardor." He represents the neces- 
sary heat for fecundation and generation, that is for Soma and Pra- 
Japati. 

Soma represents the sacred liquor (of libation and fecundation) 
and the god himself. Soma means "to distil, to extract, to sprinkle, 
to generate," the act of pressing out the Soma juice being compared 
to the act of begetting. (Sura, the sun, represents also the spirituous 
liquor.) Soma is therefore the life-giving god, the generator of 
mankind as Shem is said to be. 

Pra-Japati, lord of creatures, was an epithet originally applied to 
Savitri, Soma, Indra and Agni (all these gods represent the fire or 
the sun and are therefore generators), afterwards he became the 
name of a separate god presiding over procreation. Pra-Japati is 
Japhet. 

Noah himself is said to have been a wine-grower. In a moment 
of drunkenness he uncovers his body. The nakedness of his father 
amuses Cham and he calls his brothers to see it. Noah curses Cham 
and makes him a servant of Shem and Japhet. This malediction has 
a natural significance. Love is the slave of passion and desire. Cham 
is the natural servant of Shem and Japhet. 

Like Soma in the Vedas, so Shem is the most important of 
Noah's three sons. The blessing of Noah cannot be understood in 
any other way than this. 

"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem ; 

"And let Canaan be his servant. 

"God enlarge Japhet and let him in the tents of Shem, 

"And let Canaan be his servant." 

Canaan (Kamama) "the libidinous, the lustful," is the eternal 
servant of the drunkenness of the senses, of passion and desire, of 
Soma, and of the final act of procreation, of Prajapati who as we 
saw is an epithet of Soma. 

"Let Japhet in the tenth of Shem" signifies "let Soma be Pra- 
japati," "let the sacred liquor of generation end in fecundation. 

A hymn in the Rig- Veda, which is addressed to Soma, says : 

"Where there is happiness and delight, 
Where joy and pleasure reside, 
Where the desire of our desires is attained, 
There make us immortal." 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 1 37 

And another more significant hymn says: 

"Thou Soma, guardian of our bodies, 
Makest thy dwelling in each member. 
Lord of heaven! Though we transgress 
Thy firm decree so often, be merciful 
To us and kind and gracious." 

"Soma, guardian of our bodies, dwelling in each member," is 
this not Shem who with his brother Pra-Japati is the guardian of 
the body of Noah whose nudity is mocked by the frivolous Cham, 
the libidinous god of love? 

This mythical allegory of the natural and productive forces in 
action is, at least, nothing but a repetition of the first cosmogony 
of Genesis. Noah is El-ha-iom. Both started from the sea and 
both became progenitors of mankind. Like Noah, El curses his 
creatures, the serpent, Adam and Eve, who are three different forms 
of the same mythical personality like, at least, Cham is Shem and 
Japhet, — they also were cursed because of their act of generation. 
They were ashamed to be naked after they had eaten from the tree 
of knowledge, like Noah was ashamed to be naked after he had 
drunk the juice of the grape (of Soma, the sacred liquor of knowl- 
edge, because knowledge in Genesis is the act of procreation 15 ). 
The serpent is like Cham (Kama) the stimulation, that awakens 
sexual desire; Eve (HWH, Hava written hve, any feminine or 
coquettish gesture tending to excite amorous sensations) for the 
purpose of procreation, Adam. This libidinous serpent becomes 
the slave of Eve and Adam, like Cham became the servant of Shem 
and Japhet. In all the mythologies the gods are jealous of the holy 
fire residing in the sacred liquor that gives to mankind the knowl- 
edge of creation. El-ha-iom forbids Adam to eat from the tree of 
knowledge and punishes him for going beyond his prohibition, like 
Jupiter who refuses the fire to mankind, punishes Prometheus for 
having stolen it for mankind. But when the myth of Noah comes 
directly from Aryan source 18 and is later adulterated with the Chal- 
dasan story of the deluge, the myth of Jonah, although having its 
root in Sanskrit, as we showed in another place, seems to be bor- 
rowed directly from the Chaldaan Oannes, which in turn was taken 

* There is no mistake, PJH is knowledge only in the sense of procreation. 

p T>ni "inni mux nin nx mx m 

"And Adam knew his wife Eve and she was pregnant and etc." 

"The ancient temples of Hindostan contain representations of Vishnu 
sustaining the earth while overwhelmed by the waters of the deluge. A rain- 
bow is seen on the surface of the subsiding waters. 



138 THE MONIST. 

from the Greek Okeanos (aca or aka and yoni) inversion of Yan- 
aka, the ocean. 

Oannes, Okeanos, El-yoni, etc. 

Berosus and Alexander Polyhistor ascribe the event of the crea- 
tion to the teaching of an amphibious monster called Oannes. His 
body consisted of the body of a man terminating in the tail of a fish. 
By day he ascended from the waters of the Erythean Sea and con- 
veyed his instructions to the assembled multitude in a human voice, 
but at night he returned from the land and concealed himself within 
the recesses of the ocean. 17 

Berosus, no doubt, who according to his own report lived at 
the time of Alexander the Great, borrowed the name Oannes from 
the Greek Okeanos, whose etymology and Sanskrit origin we 
showed above. It is the more easy to affirm this fact as Berosus uses 
thalatta for Tiamat, and thalatta is the Greek Odkcuraa, meaning 
water. 

As we see all these seagods are the same ; they are all teachers 
of mankind. Jonah goes to Niniveh to preach, Oannes comes from 
the sea to teach. El-ha-iom also is a teacher. He teaches Adam 
what fruits he ought to eat, plant a garden for him, makes him 
clothes, and so forth. 

El-ha-iom, no doubt, is El-yoni, is Aka-yoni (Okeanos), is 
Jonah, is Noah, is Oannes, is the Yona of the Gauls, the Jowna or 
Jona of the Basques, the John of the Scandinavians, the old Yona 
of the Trojans, the Yawna of the Parsis. 

All these peoples worshiped the sun under the name of Jona 
("born from the water"). Jona is the earth, the fish, the sun, the 
first-born, the god started from the waters. He is the Biblical sea- 
god, he is El-ha-iom voweled in the Bible either erroniously or in- 
tentionally as Elohim and used as a plural without any plausible 
reason. 

O. Neufchotz de Jassy. 

Riverside, III. 

EDITORIAL POSTSCRIPT. 

While making up the present number of The Monist we are in 
receipt of a second instalment from M. de Jassy, which is to cor- 
roborate his theory and adds more material of the same kind. Not 

17 G. Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis. 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. 1 39 

being able to publish it here, we will at least summarize the ideas 
which it contains. 

As to the beginning of Genesis, M. de Jassy is inclined to 
admit with Moses Gerundinus (Nachmonides) called by the Jews 
"the pious teacher," that the words 

sy??? n $ a 'S^D nx wry ?s xn? rvifrns 

i. e., "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," 
may mean "In the beginning El-haiom created himself with heaven 
and earth." 

The word bara is connected with the Sanskrit bhara, "to 
create," the root of which, bhri, reappears in the English verb 
bear, the German geb'dren, etc. The Sanskrit word Bharu means 
Lord, husband, in the sense of procreator, as the Hebrew boreh is 
used of Jehovah. 

The word rakia 1 is referred to the Sanskrit rakyia or raka, a 
flash of lightning, azure, crystal, firmament. 

M. de Jassy believes that the Old Testament teaches a trinity 
like the Brahman Trimurti, which he means to prove by the three 
covenants. The first covenant is made by Elohim, or rather El- 
haiom, the god of the waters, and is symbolized by the rainbow. 
The second is the covenant of the burning bush which Ehjeh 2 
makes with Moses. The name Ehjeh, according to the current 
view, is the Hebrew word substituted for the four holy consonants 
of the ineffable name Yahveh. 3 The sentence in Ex. iii. 14, "ehyeh 
asher ehyeh," is translated in our English Bible by "I am that I 
am," implying that the name Yahveh is derived from hajah, "to be." 
M. De Jassy discovers in ehyeh the Sanskrit Ejeh, which is "the 
fallen dawn," and he explains it as the fire that comes down from 
heaven, viz., lightning. The third covenant is made between El 
Shaddai and Abraham, El Shaddai being the destroyer who prom- 
ises to preserve his protege Abraham on the condition of circum- 
cision which is a partial mutilation. The word mula i (circum- 
cision) is supposed to be connected with the Sanskrit mulya, "to 
eradicate." 

The passage (Deut. vi. 4), 

Hear O Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord," 
receives a peculiar interpretation. M. de Jassy denies that it con- 
tains any monotheistic idea, the word echad* meaning not only "one" 

ijrp? 2 n-nx »mir 4 n'?ra onx 



I4O THE MONIST. 

but also "the first." The passage therefore may be translated, "Hear 
O Israel, Yahveh our God is the first one [the first in the trinity]." 
On the other hand M. de Jassy is inclined to see in achad (i. e., echad) 
a similarity with the Sanskrit arhat, which is commonly translated 
"holy," or with ahata, meaning "unsoiled" or "uninjured." 

The phylacteries (in the Talmud called tephilin") which even 
to-day the Jews tie to their foreheads and arms are little cases in- 
scribed with the letter S* and containing scrolls. The name phylac- 
tery indicates that they were for talismanic use, while the word 
tephilin, "prayers," shows the nature of the writing and the method 
by which the protection was accomplished. Now M. de Jassy claims 
that these cases, originally called totophath,* can only have been 
Shivaistic emblems of a phallic nature. The letter 5 is the initial 
of Shaddai or Shiva, and the word totophath is identified with the 
Sanskrit tattva, which means "real thing." 

* * * 

In reply to the editorial introduction to his article M. de Jassy 
makes the following rejoinder: 

M. de Jassy's Rejoinder. 
The theory of mere "remarkable coincidences," as the editor 
of The Monist denominated our demonstration at first sight, will, 
we are afraid, prove a failure. We are proceeding by linguistic 
proofs, and our mythological comparisons are geometrical congru- 
ences. If objections are made — we do not fear them — they have to 
be made in the same way and under the same conditions. Science 
excludes casuistical conjectures and the old theological standpoint 
is out of date. 

Mr. Carus claims that Kabbalism has found many wonderful 
"coincidences" in cipher-combinations! — That may be! But "com- 
binations" and "conjectures" are not scientific proofs. That the word 
echad (one) for example, gives the number 13 as the result of 
cipher addition of its three letters 

X = 1 

n = 8 

1 = 4 

13 
is a proof neither that this number is a holy one, nor that it de- 
notes the trinity in the unity in the separation of the two digits 1 



CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS. I4I 

and 3. The same thing is true of the further result of the letters 
of Yahveh that give the number 26, i. e., twice the number 13. 

* = 10 

D = 5 

1 = 6 

n = 5 

26 

There is no plausible proof that Jehovah represents twice the 
trinity in the unity and that Jehovah Echad, together expressing 
in the Shetnah the Jewish monotheism, represent as an emphasis 
three times trinity in unity. 

When you continue in this way, the word El, "God," represents 
three in one as well: 

X = 1 

5 = 30 

31 
and when you take the word lo, 9 i. e. "not," the inversion of El, 10 
you arrive at the same cipher result: 

? = 30 
X = 1 

31 

But lo means "not" and El means "God." In this case God 
would be nought. Such demonstrations are absurd! 

These number-plays borrowed by the Jews from the Chaldae- 
ans, who in their turn took them from the Persians and Hindus, 
may amuse the childish minds of unscientific casuists. In such 
combinations and conjectures "coincidences" may find their appli- 
cation ; but modern philology and comparative mythology are based 
upon other foundations. 

When I am able to prove that the root R is the same as the 
root R', as it was shown, for instance, in shad (the Hebrew root) 
and shad (the Sanskrit root) ; when I can prove that the term T 
is equal to the term 7" as I showed in Shadai (the Hebrew word) 
and Shad-ja (the Sanskrit word) when, finally, I can prove that the 
mythological facts which characterize the personalities represented 
by these roots and terms are as identical as two geometrical trian- 
gles, it is no longer lawful to speak of "coincidences" ; or when you 
» X5 «> ?K 



142 THE MONIST. 

are speaking of coincidences, I accept them in their literal sense. 
These roots coincide, these terms and mythological facts coincide, 
because being the same, they cannot but coincide. Their point of 
departure, the idea they imply, the phenomena that accompany them, 
are identical, and they are based upon the same scientific principles. 
Only in this way can I accept for my thesis the word "coincidences." 
Alterum non datur. 



A PRAGMATIC ZOOLOGIST.* 

Andrea Giardina, in his recent work Le discipline zoologiche e 
la scienza generate delle forme organizzate,^ takes occasion, apropos 
of certain criticisms previously made by him regarding the regula- 
tion of biological studies in our universities, to expound certain of 
his ideas on the methodology of the various departments of biology. 

One of his main criticisms concerns the persistence of the dis- 
tinction made between the teaching of zoology and that of compara- 
tive anatomy: a distinction which seems to him unjustifiable on any 
count, theoretical or practical, and to be explained only on historical 
grounds. 

"To within a century the term 'zoology' applied exclusively to 
the study of the external forms of animals, and the best zoologists 
bent all their efforts to a careful investigation of the resemblances 
and differences of these outward forms ; and zoology, outside of its 
bearings on the life and habits of animals, was a kind of compara- 
tive morphology confined wholly or largely to the exterior aspect 
of such organisms. Its main purpose was to elaborate a system of 
classification for animals which should be as simple as possible. 
The study of the internal organization, at first limited to man and. 
those animals nearest related to him, arose chiefly as a result of 
the needs of medical science and did not attain so early to the rank 
of comparative morphology. The anatomists and naturalists who 
turned their attention to the dissection of the lower animals were 
few, and began perforce with the study of isolated forms. Anatom- 
ical monographs were not, and are not, things lightly to be dashed 
off: they took much time and labor; so that it was only gradually 
that there was amassed a body of material comparable in richness 
and variety with what was already possessed by zoology for external 

♦Translated from the Italian by Herbert D. Austin. This paper appeared 
originally in the Leonardo, Oct-Dec, 1906. 

fPavia, 1906.